Recently on Cyclingnews.com

Letters to Cyclingnews - June 16, 2006

Here's your chance to get more involved with Cyclingnews. Comments and
criticism on current stories, races, coverage and anything cycling related
are welcomed, even pictures if you wish. Letters should be brief (less
than 300 words), with the sender clearly identified. They may be edited
for space and clarity; please stick to one topic per letter. We will normally
include your name and place of residence, but not your email address unless
you specify in the message.

Each week's best letter gets our 'letter of the week'. We look for for
letters that contain strong, well-presented opinions; humour; useful information
or unusual levels of sheer helpfulness.

Pound should resign

This is as close as you will come to ‘truth’, Mr. Hubbard: if Armstrong
was a doper, he was the fastest doper out there, and if he wasn’t,
then that just proves that dopers really do suck, talent-wise.

Cycling is not a search for truth; it is a game with a set of rules
that apply to everyone involved. The purpose of the ‘approved protocol,’
which is one of the rules, is to provide an acceptable level of
assurance that the results of testing are accurate. If that protocol
is not followed, there is no infraction, regardless of our thirst
for truth. If you know of a better rule that will guarantee ‘the
truth,’ I bet WADA, FIFA, UCI, IOC, MLB, NFL, etc., will buy it…by
the ‘Pound.’

Pound should resign #2

Antony - in response to your letter where you state that as far as you can
tell, Lance Armstrong was guilty of doping during the year in question, let
me propose the following scenario:

Your employer requested a urine sample from you for drug testing seven years
ago, you passed all tests done at the time, and each and every test since then,
and went on successfully in your career. Now you are confronted with this -
without your permission or knowledge, without proper procedures, protocol, or
even a guarantee the seven-year-old samples had been safely stored and not tampered
with, the organisation that failed to follow even its own rules of testing deems
you guilty - in a very public, reputation-smearing manner - and you have no
way to defend yourself, because the samples have been destroyed. Now tell me
how guilty you think Lance is.

Pound should resign #3

Antony Hubbard states:

"Well for me it is ALL about EPO use by Lance Armstrong. Which, as far as I
can see from the facts, has been shown to have occurred, albeit by an unapproved
protocol. Armstrong's use of EPO proves a couple of important things which people
would do well to take note of."

Let’s suppose you’re driving down the road at a speed that's at or below the
posted speed limit. A local law enforcement officer pulls you over and informs
you that you were travelling 15 mph over the limit. You protest your innocence.
Nevertheless, the officer informs you that his speed detection device indicated
that your speed was 15 over the limit and so you are issued a citation and compelled
to pay a fine.

Upon investigation, you discover that the police officer's device was cobbled
together from parts he scrounged off eBay. The device was never subjected to
any scientific testing. It was not calibrated. It was not validated as being
accurate. The officer assembled it in his garage and immediately proceeded to
use it to convict you of a violation.

Do you throw up you hands and say "Well, even though the officer used an unapproved
protocol, his unapproved protocol said I'm guilty, so that means I'm guilty"?

These drug tests are incredibly complex. Analysing their results is far more
complex than looking at number on the back of a radar gun. People think these
tests work like an early pregnancy test you get from your neighbourhood pharmacy.
Not so! There have been several cases stated where two highly trained scientists
analysed the same test results and came to completely opposite conclusions.
This is not a situation where one blue line means a rider is innocent, but two
blue lines means he's a doper.

Since these tests and the analysis of their results are incredibly complex,
the protocol, process and procedures followed for executing and interpreting
these tests is highly relevant and cannot be dismissed as Mr. Hubbard suggests.
It is not a simple case of "procedural niceties". The validity of the protocol
doesn't just give it credibility; it goes directly to the accuracy of the result.

That's the saddest part of this whole travesty. Because these dunderheads failed
to use approved protocols, their results are useless and totally invalid. There
are no facts, and we still don't know the truth.

Now I’m really confused

First, the ASO doesn't want the Pro Tour to happen. Now they're awaiting the
UCI's decision as to who races in their event or not. And they're asking Manolo
Saiz to sell his shares of the team management company.

This beginning to sound a lot like a bad Broadway musical, "it's somebody else's
problem, not ours". What a horrible state of affairs for the riders to compete
in! It’s way past too late for the Tour team inclusion and Wurth has their berth
at the start in question.

When will these people act their age and not like some dysfunctional group
of preschoolers? All politics aside, Lance Armstrong was the most tested rider
during his reign as the Tour champion. Now, amazingly, 7 years later we have
information that was "leaked" about his "EPO usage". we get treated to a "tit
for tat" round of finger pointing between WADA, the ASO, and the UCI. At the
end? Nothing.

Now, we're getting the same thing with Manolo Saiz and his team. he was arrested
and the details are not clear yet. The previous stance was as soon as there
was confirmation of wrong-doing, then there's the sacking. as of this date,
nothing has been confirmed regarding Saiz or his team, but the flags of righteous
indignation have been hoisted high.

Take a stand, ASO, UCI and WADA. Make policy and stick to it. All this waffling
back and forth discredits you and harms the general state of cycling. Work with
and for the riders you claim you're here for!

Vinokourov, Saiz, doping and the TdF

I disagree with the letter saying Vino's comment about trusting Saiz is "pretty
dumb". I think, instead, that it expresses both fairness and loyalty. The case
against Saiz has not yet been proven, and so Vino is basing his trust on past
relations, rather than as-yet unproved allegations and doping hype in the media.

We would all be better served to follow Vino's lead and not make hasty judgements
of guilt. Vino obviously wants to ride the tour quite badly, but not so badly
that he is willing to disassociate himself from someone he trusts, before he
is given a compelling reason NOT to trust that person. I think this shows honour,
loyalty, and a sense of justice and fairness.

The Spanish operation

Jeff Donaghue isn't necessarily simple minded but he's being a bit simplistic.
If I have 800cc of my blood extracted and frozen, I have not committed any crime.
I may wish to ensure a supply of my own blood in case I ever need a transfusion.
(And before you all go "Aw, c'mon", I'm a pensioner, not an athlete.) On the
other hand, someone who takes my blood out of storage, for analysis or whatever
purpose, may well be infringing my human rights. Too many people are leaping
aboard a media bandwagon and blaming cyclists for 'crimes' before any judiciary
system has had a chance to act either for or against them.

Botero and Gutierrez have been suspended. Is this a case of Phonak playing
the deniability game? They gladly employ riders as rolling adverts, but the
merest whiff of scandal and Phonak holds up its lily white hands in horror and
doesn't want to know them. Of course, there were Camezind, Hamilton, and Perez...now
it seems anyone with a Kelme connection is a suspect. What about Phonak's directeur
sportif Alvaro Pino, formerly with Kelme? And so was Heras (ah, but he wasn't
accused of blood doping) and Sevilla. Talk about a witch hunt! It's all rather
nauseating, isn't it?

Misplaced sympathy

I don't get it. Saiz is nailed (rightly, if he is guilty) for alleged complicity
in drug shenanigans, yet there is an outpouring of sympathy for 'the poor riders'
under his control. A new team is created in order to participate in the TdF.
Same team, just (ostensibly) without Saiz.

Just who do people think those drugs were destined for? His dog? His own consumption?
I can just see Saiz physically restraining his riders and forcing them to take
'treatments' against their will. The moon is made of cheese, don’t ya know?

Name the suspects

Dear Sir,

A few weeks have passed since the arrests, allegations etc.

Just one thought; apparently a list of 200 athletes (as they have indicated
it’s not just cyclists) was found on the premises with details of their programs.
So here is a simple solution to it all, name and shame all the athletes, put
the responsibility with them, bravo to Phonak for their response; imagine what
would happen to the pro peloton if all the other teams followed suit!

As a fan I hope the riders are clean, know that some are most probably not,
and be damned the consequences, would like to see all 'suspect' riders named.

Spanish doping

Dear Editor,

In the same breath (or at least the same Cyclingnews.com report) Communidad-Valencia
has to beg for their Tour bid back, but Wurth announces its long team for the
Tour while dedicating a win to Manolo Saiz. There's something here that I do
not understand. Manolo Saiz (THE guy at Liberty Seguros-Wurth) has been clearly
and heavily implicated in Operacion Puerto, while José Ignacio Labarta (an assistant
DS with Communidad-Valencia) has been arrested but not much else, and yet C-V
loses their Tour spot while Wurth gets ready to race?

How good can ‘cycling's’ unified condemnation of doping be when there is this
double standard? Presumably the exception given to Wurth was, on some level,
because of their status as a ProTour team, whereas C-V is merely a continental
team. If the situation were to be handled properly, both squads would lose their
bid and the race would presumably become fairer for the other clean teams and
riders.

If the UCI wanted to take a firm stance on doping, now is the time. Let ASO
give Wurth the boot, as I'm sure they'd love to do, start throwing down some
meaningful suspensions and get the message out that this will not stand. It
won't happen, though.

The UCI will continue to be easy on cheaters, and people like Manolo Saiz will
continue to be cavalier with their approach to drugs and reckless with the loyalty
that we, the fans (the people that buy the gear and read the sides of the team
cars and jerseys, who show up to watch a race), show to the sport by begging
for better TV coverage and having our pictures taken under a Credit Agricole
sign the first time we went to France, or watching more Discovery Channel, or
getting some nice new floors put in, or eating more jelly beans, or buying our
grandparents really nice hearing aids.

Opinions from France

In your Dauphine coverage, JF Quenet often mentions the editorial opinions
in France about the Puerto affair - that folks are watching the underperforming
Spaniards with some suspicion. But nobody's mentioned one of the biggest underperformers
in all three mountain stages so far: Floyd Landis.

Two of his teammates have already been suspended by Phonak (a team with a number
of members, it should be noted, previously booted for doping issues: Hamilton,
Camenzind, Gonzalez). Has there been any discussion - either on the editorial
pages or in the Spanish press - of any connection Landis has to Operacion Puerto?

ASO

Dear letters page

The ASO decision to retract their invitation of Communidad Valencia to this
year’s TdF is complete nonsense and another part of the vendetta that Leblanc
and now Proudhomme have against the former Kelme team.

AG2R, Cofidis and seven-times KoM winner Richard Virenque all transgressed
yet are given immunity by this chauvinistic French shambles of an organisation.
Communidad Valencia have done everything by the book for the last two years
since the Manzano case, and on a sporting level have outshone the best of the
Pro Tour in many races within Spain this year and last.

Maybe the French should exclude all "foreign" teams, that way they might get
a winner who is French!

Simoni vs. Basso

Arthur Xanthopoulos raises a valid point – that deals are often done. I have
no doubt that deals are done, and that some of those deals include payment of
money.

Basso consistently denied Simoni’s claim regarding demand for payment. I like
to think a person who is the subject of such an allegation should be given the
benefit of the doubt, rather than giving the person making the allegation the
benefit of the doubt.

Look at the way in which Simoni retracted his allegation against Basso (all
quotes from Cyclingnews.com): “I never tried to offend Basso…I didn't want to
damage him. I said some wrong things but I didn't want to cause him any damage.
These things are part of the dynamics of racing."

Simoni’s lawyer, Giuseppe Napoleone, also says on Simoni’s behalf: "Simoni
retracted; there was no talk of deals and much less of money. We made it clear
that Simoni is a racer, not a public relations expert nor a lawyer. It was a
matter of a lack of racing sportsmanship. It was all down to interpretation:
to go downhill together and then fight for the victory with a sprint was for
Simoni something obvious."

What do we get from this? Simoni makes an assumption that by staying with Basso
on the descent, Basso had agreed that they would ride together until the sprint.
Simoni’s lawyer states there was no such deal. Basso rides off the front, leaving
Simoni in his wake. Simoni has a tantrum after the stage, and then, after sleeping
on this issue overnight and racing the final stage on the following day, makes
a serious allegation against Basso that is simply made up. He makes that allegation
when the cycling world is focused on Basso (as the winner). Clearly designed
for maximum damage to Basso’s reputation.

Basso’s excuse – he is racer, not a lawyer or public relations expert, and
it is part of “the dynamics of racing”. Sorry – not good enough Gilberto. You
thought about it overnight and planned your attack on a fellow cyclist’s character
with the same skill that you have employed for many years as a good pro cyclist.
You knew what you were doing, and what that was bears little resemblance to
cycle racing at all. Sad day for cycling. The UCI should move to suspend Gilberto,
as it is empowered to do.

Simoni vs. Basso #2

Simoni's false allegations were a childish reaction to his understandable state
of frustration. The Mortirolo is the "true climber's" mountain. For him to suffer
defeat at the hands of an all-rounder like Basso is certainly humiliating. However,
I can sympathize with his feeling of having been cheated by Basso.

Here is why. When two riders are away together and agree to work together,
as requested by Basso when he asked Simoni not to drop him on the downhill,
it is with the implicit understanding that this cooperation will last until
the final kilometre (the "flamme rouge") and that the race will ultimately be
settled in a two-man sprint near the line. When Basso dropped Simoni on the
slope of Passo Aprica, he breached that agreement. If Simoni refrained from
using his superior technical skills to his advantage to drop Basso on the descent,
Basso should have done the same and not dropped an unsuspecting Simoni on the
following climb. Working together means staying together until the end.

Simoni certainly was wrong to make these false accusations (which he later
retracted). He owes Basso an apology. But he remains a worthy champion whose
frustration in the circumstances can explain, if not excuse, his behaviour.

Simoni vs. Basso #3

Hi, I truly like the insight of Mr Arthur Xanthopoulos. I'm a Simoni fan and
Italian.

I would also like to add a couple of facts about this unfortunate dispute;
Simoni and Basso were good friends until that day. Gilberto is a person who
cannot stand being betrayed, and Basso told him to wait going downhill, so of
course he expects to at least finish together with a sprint.

Simoni, right after the stage, was asked how he fared. His answer was "there
are no longer gentlemen"; the journalist mentioned that Basso just wanted to
dedicate this victory to his newborn son, to which Simoni asked why Basso didn’t
just say so.

The day before this happened Simoni was congratulating Basso on how strong
he was and wished all the best for Basso's new son on his website. The truth
is that Simoni felt betrayed by a friend; Simoni changed his mind after what
Basso said and this damaged his trust.

Moreover, Gibo would have preferred not to talk at all, and at least he knew
he would have lost or he would have attacked downhill to try his chances. Simoni
was quoted on national TV as saying, "Basso would have had a good chance to
win the stage no matter what, but at least he should not have asked me to wait
for him…and I would have tried my chances differently.”

I have been reading a lot of magazines and websites and all I have to say is
that they all did not mention all that was said and discussed, of course with
a lack of information - especially in English publications.

I read also about Simoni’s dispute with Cunego; I'd like to remember that Simoni
was upset because Cunego did not respect the plan made earlier in the morning
with Saeco manager Martinelli. Besides, let's not forget that Cunego would not
have won his Giro if Simoni did not give him the green light to escape.

Simoni is popular not all over Italy, but what Simoni fans like about him is
that he never lies. Again, he had to retract his words because he could not
prove anything given there were no witnesses, and it was Simoni’s word against
Basso’s. He would have been sanctioned for six months by telling the truth.
So the moral of the story is: truth, in this world, is not important - what
matters is being politically correct.

Regardless, I’ll support Basso for the Tour, and believe he is a good guy but
even good guys sometimes may say silly things that can be offensive too...

Simoni vs. Basso #4

Cyclingnews reader Arthur X claims:

“Second point is that Basso has not denied Simoni's claim that Basso asked
him not to drop him on the descent through Mortirolo nor has he really denied
Simoni's claims of money for the stage win, so this would suggest that Basso
did in fact say this to Simoni.”

Apparently he wasn't reading Cyclingnews on May 29th:

“The surprised Basso turned to the media and explained, ‘It's true that I asked
(Simoni) to stay with me on the descent, but the rest is all false.’ But Simoni
wasn't backing off his allegations that Basso tried to sell him the stage, saying
to Basso with his trademark cold smile "Do you want me to say how much you asked
for?", and then turned his back on Basso and moved away.

Clearly agitated, Basso then said to the assembled media, ‘I'm just not going
to let anything ruin my day today. I think I've shown all during this Giro that
I am the strongest. As I said, I did ask Simoni to stay with me on the descent,
but for the rest of his filthy words, they are absolutely false.’”

Voigt vs. Hincapie

I agree with Stano Faban of Vancouver. What Jens Voigt did was a nice gesture.
He also is someone whose name is seen a lot on breakaways, etc. George Hincapie
has spent his entire Tour de France races riding for Lance Armstrong. In all
the years Lance raced for the yellow jersey, not one of his teammates had won
a stage.

George had been told to stay back in the breakaway in case the peloton caught
up or he needed to fall back to protect Lance. When they finally told him that
the peloton wasn't going to catch up and he could ride his own race, naturally
he tried to figure out how he might have a chance to win.

He had to go from the back of the breakaway to the front, and he is not considered
a climber. Pla d'Adet is up...up...up. I can understand him coming from the
back and then going for it. I thought it was wonderful that somebody from Discovery
other than Lance finally won a stage.

Besides, sprinters do it all the time. Robbie McEwen nearly always rides on
the wheel of a sprinter from another team and then pulls around him at the end
to win. I imagine he would do the same thing in a breakaway.

Jens Voigt vs. George Hincapie

It grows rather tiresome reading the exchanges about Jens Voigt and George
Hincapie by delatantes on the sidelines.

I'm quite sure that the one who least liked the way George Hincapie won the
Stage 15 of the Tour from Jens was George himself.

But both men are professionals and both knew that George had the responsibility
to sit on and to sprint for the win. Jens would do the same thing if the positions
were reversed and all professionals know that.

We are all aware and so are all the other riders that Jens won the moral victory
but that never shows up in the record books. Discovery Channel pays big money
for the best from its team and George lived up to the responsibility he had
to his employer.

Let's recap - George Hincapie won the hardest mountain stage in the 2005 Tour
de France. Even considering that he sat on that is an outstanding accomplishment
for a man who entered the sport as a sprinter.

Voigt and Hincapie

Um, I think the description of Jens Voigt as merely a "damn good worker", might
be a little off the mark. Wasn't he the guy that busted his arse in Liege -
Bastogne- Liege for nearly the WHOLE race to be out-sprinted by Vino even though
Jens did the majority of the work? He has worn the yellow jersey too, hasn't
he? Won tour stages, stage races and time trials?

Jens Voigt has what many watchers of modern cycling fail to grasp. He has CLASS.
To give a stage to a stronger rider is not romantic - it is the action of a
man who knows who he is and has no need to prove anything to anyone. Jens Voigt
is in every sense of the word, a winner. To suggest his action was simply a
tactic to "win friends"! Go away and find an article about Charley Mottet or
some of the other classy riders of the past and learn something.

Jane Higdon

On May 31, 2006, Dr. Jane Higdon died while riding with three other cyclists
south of Eugene, Oregon, on Territorial Road. The group of four experienced
riders were riding single file when a logging truck pulled alongside them so
close that one rider was crashed into the ditch and Jane was hit by the rear
wheels of the trailer. The State Police are still investigating this accident.

This winding rural road has no shoulder, and is travelled by logging trucks
and campers. On June 7 a celebration of life was held at the McDonald theatre
in Eugene - close to 1000 people attended. Jane was remembered for her love
of sport (a finisher in seven Ironmans, including Hawaii twice), her wit (she
loved riding with the guys - and beating them to the top of the hill, hence
her title of "Queen Jane") and her work ethic both personally and professionally.

She knew people in all areas of the sports community – swimming, running, cycling.
A researcher and author at the Linus Pauling Institute in Corvallis, Oregon
she also developed and managed the LPI "Micronutrients" information website.
This site is a free source of information to professionals and the public worldwide.
Another memorial will be held next week in Corvallis at the Linus Pauling Institute
for her friends and co- workers to remember her. (Corvallis is about 50 miles
N of Eugene.) So for all the athletes worldwide who have used this site, I'm
sure the LPI would appreciate hearing from you.

On a personal note - this one really hurts. For so many of us in the area who
ride this rode we know it could just as easily have been one of us. This wasn't
an accident - this was aggressive driving - ignoring the consequences - playing
chicken with bike riders using a 100,000 pound (45,000 kilo) logging truck.
This is truly sickness.

Jeremy Vennell diary

Hi there,

I just wanted to thank Jeremy Vennell for his refreshing and humorous Team
DFL-Cyclingnews-Litespeed Diary. His writing style is emotive and full of life,
and he does New Zealand proud both as a writer and as a cyclist at the thick
end of the action. Back in Aotearoa we're looking out for your tales of the
road and wishing you well, Jeremy.

May 26 - Special edition:
Say it ain't so, Manolo, Say it isn't so, Spanish Federations' reaction to
Saiz, The doping scandal to end them all

May 19: Bettini is consistent,
Banning of altitude tents, Hypoxic tents, WADA and altitude tents, Latest
WADA crusade, WADA bans another, Congrats to Jan, Criticism of Jan Ullrich,
Jan bashing, Jan ready for the Tour, Jan's good form, Armstrong - the New
American Idol, The same old Lance, Defeatism in Discovery, Giro reactions,
One of Savoldelli's secrets, Rasmussen's time trial position, Riders under
helmets, Difference between following and leading, The Tour and the TT, Bruyneel's
Giro comments, When disqualification isn't enough

May 12: Marion Clignet, Bruyneel's
Giro comments, Criticism of Jan Ullrich, Jan bashing, Jan's weight, Defeatism
in Discovery, Lance talking up Basso, The same old Lance, Rasmussen's time
trial position, Giro team time trial, Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix, Riders under
helmets

April 28: Working for the team
in Georgia, Ullrich's thick skin, Ullrich and the 2006 Tour, Jan Ullrich racing,
Ullrich and THAT wheel, Jan Ullrich, Jan dramas, Paris-Roubaix technology,
Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Roubaix controversy, Paris-Roubaix comments,
Paris-Roubaix tech, Team helmets

April 21: Paris-Roubaix final
say, Paris-Roubaix controversy, Paris-Roubaix and technology, George and the
fork issue, Quotable quotes, Cycling technology, Behaving like a champion,
Paris-Roubaix: UCI Code of Ethics

April 7: Hang in there Saul,
De Ronde parcours, Edwig van Hooydonk, Discovery’s American riders, Tom Boonen,
April fools, Hair care product line, Brave new world, Commonwealth Games time
trial, Photo of the year

March 31: Discovery’s American
riders, Photo of the year, Commonwealth Games time trial, Edwig van Hooydonk

February 10: Ullrich and the
2006 Tour, Too early to call the Tour, AIS crash verdict, Punishment for the
death of Amy Gillett, Women's cycling, Support for Mark French, Michael Rassmussen,
More Kilo and 500m TT argument, Liberty Seguros at Tour Down Under, Hour record,
Sanctions for doping

February 3: International teams,
Liberty Seguros at Tour Down Under, Anti-doping tactics, Ullrich and the 2006
Tour, Too early to call the Tour, Tour of California, Phonak training camp
feature, Aussie national champs, More Kilo and 500m TT argument, McQuaid and
the UCI, Australian championships, Support for Mark French, Sanctions for
doping, Women's cycling, Team strip

January 24: Future of Spanish
cycling, Australian championships, Aussie national champs - a deserved winner,
Aussie nationals, World champion kit, Ullrich and the 2006 Tour, With Lance
gone, Some observations on Oz, PCA suing Dick Pound, International teams

January 6: The Tour hypocrisy,
Pat McQuaid, McQuaid, Bart Wellens, Urine testing, Dope so you can

January 3: That damn Lance,
Bart Wellens, Cyclists in South Australia, EGO Mania, King Pound, Urine testing
for rEPO, The Tour hypocrisy, Dope so you can, Give McQuaid a chance, Elimination
Tour de France